Resisting, hindering or obstructing police
Resisting, hindering or willfully obstructing a police officer charges can be one of the most unjust experiences a person can have in the criminal courts. It is not unusual for police to falsely accuse people of assaulting them in circumstances where the police were the ones to have engaged in unlawful, violent conduct. At times it can feel like a David and Goliath battle with army of police facing off against you and your lawyer. We’re ready the for the fight. We are not scared to call out these bullying tactics. This is why our criminal lawyers have great success in defending charges of Resisting, hindering or obstructing a police officer.
If you intend to plead guilty our criminal lawyers have a proven track record of keeping our clients out of jail and also having no conviction recorded for Resisting, hindering or obstructing a police officer.
How do I beat a charge of Resisting, hindering or willfully obstructing a police officer?
You will be found not guilty of the offence of Assaulting a police officer occasioning actual bodily harm if the police cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt:
- Resisted the person. Resistance implies the use of force to oppose some course of action which the person resisted is attempting to pursue); or
- Wilfully obstructed the person. Wilful obstruction implies acts on the part of the defendant which may fall short of assault, but which interferes with the lawful execution of the duties of an officer, e.g. officers in the course of making inquiries, causing a crowd to gather, failure to obey a lawful request); or
- Hindered the person. A police officer is hindered by an obstruction or interference that makes his duty substantially more difficult in performance; and
- The person was a police officer; and
- The assault occurred while the person was acting in the execution of his/her duty.
It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that you knew that the victim was an officer on duty. An officer not acting within his formal work hours can be acting in the execution of his duty if the police officer’s conduct is connected to his functions as a police officer and he does not do anything outside the ambit of his duty.
Defences available include self-defence or arguing that evidence was unlawfully obtained because the police officer was acting illegally him or herself.
Pleading guilty to Assaulting a police officer
If you committed the offence and the police can prove so it, we want to get you a better result than anyone else. We will often negotiate with prosecutors for you to plead guilty to less serious facts or even a less serious charge, so that you get a lighter sentence.
An offence of Resisting, hindering or obstructing a police officer pursuant to section 58 or 60 of the Crimes Act carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment in the District Court. It carries2 years imprisonment if the matter is dealt with in the Local Court. An offence of Resisting, hindering or obstructing a police officer pursuant to section 546C of the Crimes Act carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment and/or a fine of $1,100.00. These maximum penalties are typically reserved for the worst offenders.
You can read about all the sentencing options that a court has, including having no conviction recorded for Resisting, hindering or obstructing a police officer.
Do I need references?
We believe references are an extremely important part of a plea of guilty in court. To find out more about how to write a good reference, click here.
Why choose Australian Criminal Law Group?
Our criminal lawyers are experts at obtaining the best outcome possible for Resisting, hindering or obstructing a police officer offences. A good lawyer can be the difference between no criminal record and freedom, or a conviction and jail.
Australian Criminal Law Group represented a man accused of offensive behaviour. He was a peeping tom in bushes watching women urinating in a park. He also resisted police by struggling with them when they tried to arrest him. Criminal lawyer Joe Correy cross-examined the police over two days. The Magistrate found that the lighting was too poor to find beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused man was not simply in the bushes to urinate himself. The police evidence was found to be inconsistent in regard to the resist police allegation. The Magistrate found the evidence of the Accused man should be accepted over the six police who gave contradictory evidence. The Accused man was found not guilty of all charges.
Australian Criminal Law Group represented a young man charged with a single offence of resisting arrest with two police officer victims. The matter proceeded to hearing and criminal lawyer Joe Correy cited a defect in the indictment. While it could be argued there was evidence one police officer was resisted, there was no evidence of the second officer being resisted. The Magistrate accepted the argument. The Accused man was found not guilty on a technicality (the deficient indictment).
Australian Criminal Law Group represented a young man accused of hindering police arresting a friend by pulling police officers off him and then resisting arrest. Criminal lawyer Deng Adut argued that his client had a charitable background, including lifesaving and volunteering with the Rural Fire Service. This meant that not only was he of impeccable character, but he was also not the type who could be a spectator if he perceived a wrong (correctly or not). It was argued that the community and society had benefited from that aspect of his personality. The court could appropriately extend leniency where it had played a role in the offending. The Magistrate did not record a conviction.